JOHANNES JAKOBUS STRYDOM: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, do you confirm the correctness of your application? The pages are a bit jumbled, but your application commences on page 421, 422, 423 up to page 429. Do you confirm the correctness thereof?
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Those are the page numbers in bundle 1. Very well. Then if we go over to page 422 and 423 where the particulars of this incident of Mandla appears, do you confirm the correctness thereof?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: I would just like to question you about a few aspects in order to clarify what you say in your application. What was your rank at that stage?
MR STRYDOM: I was a Warrant Officer.
MR DU PLESSIS: And in which unit were you?
MR STRYDOM: Unit C, at Compol building.
MR DU PLESSIS: And who was your commander at Unit C?
MR STRYDOM: Capt Hendrik Prinsloo.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Capt Crafford, what was his position?
MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford at that stage was the commander.
MR DU PLESSIS: But Capt Prinsloo was also your commander?
MR STRYDOM: He was also my commander, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Who was the senior man, Crafford or Prinsloo?
MR STRYDOM: Crafford was the senior man.
MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Strydom, how many times were you involved in the interrogation of Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: As far as I recall, only once.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And who was present during the interrogation, can you recall? You say in the second paragraph, you refer to Capt Sakkie Crafford and black members, can you recall who the black members were?
MR STRYDOM: It was Capt Sakkie Crafford and black members, Jerry and Smuts. There were others, but I cannot recall their names.
MR DU PLESSIS: And were you aware of the subject matter of the interrogation?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I was.
MR DU PLESSIS: You have read the application of Capt Crafford.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you have seen what information was available there from Mandla.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: You will find that on page 496, Chairperson, 496 and 495.
And you refer in paragraph 2 to shifts of interrogation. Let us just clear this up, were there specific regular shifts which the various divisions had undertaken, or what did you mean by that?
MR STRYDOM: I can specifically recall that I and Capt Sakkie Crafford one afternoon undertook the interrogation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what I mean is, were there regular shifts? Would you for example every afternoon between two and four, interrogate the man?
MR STRYDOM: No, for sure not, it was different times.
MR DU PLESSIS: Were you ever present where Capt Prinsloo undertook the interrogation of Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: You are saying that you were only present that specific one time to which you refer.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, with Capt Crafford.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you are saying in the second paragraph that at some stage you drove, you left the activist in the care of the black members and when you returned at 10 o'clock that evening you found him hanging from a tree.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you please explain how he was tied to the tree.
MR STRYDOM: He was tied to the tree by his hands and he was on his feet, he hung.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did he hang upside down?
MR STRYDOM: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: And his feet were not hanging in the air, or he was not hanging in some funny fashion?
MR STRYDOM: No, his feet were not away from the ground.
MR DU PLESSIS: You say he was then already assaulted by the black members.
MR STRYDOM: It seemed to me so.
MR MALAN: Did you say his feet touched the ground?
MR STRYDOM: Yes.
MR MALAN: So he was just tied up?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: He could have stood if he wanted to?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, he could.
MR MALAN: But he was hanging.
MR STRYDOM: Yes.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then you refer in your last sentence to a funny name, Myali, should that be Mtjali?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that has to be Mtjali.
MR DU PLESSIS: Then in the third paragraph you say Capt Crafford took his pistol and held the barrel up in the air and pulled the trigger until the magazine was empty.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you struck him with a soda water bottle.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you get any information from him of any value during this assault and interrogation?
MR STRYDOM: No, we did not obtain any further information from him because from the questions that Sakkie Crafford put to him there was no significant information which we obtained from him.
MR DU PLESSIS: You have seen in Capt Crafford's application on page 497 - you do not have to page there, he says that he, Crafford, burnt Mandla with a log.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was this at the same time when he fired with a pistol and you struck him with the bottle?
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was there anybody else who burnt him, anybody but Capt Crafford, who burnt him with a log?
MR STRYDOM: Not as far as I can recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: And at that stage when you did these things and the pistol was fired and the bottle was used and he was burnt with the log, was Mandla cooperating or was he not cooperating?
MR STRYDOM: He did not offer any cooperation.
MR DU PLESSIS: What was the purpose of these actions?
MR STRYDOM: To intimidate him and to break his moral.
MR DU PLESSIS: At a stage he was unconscious and he had several wounds to his head.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you are saying in the laster sentence
"During interrogation he supplied information and several names to us."
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: When did he do this, after he was struck with the bottle, before he was struck with bottle, after he was burnt, before he was burnt, when did he do this?
MR STRYDOM: After he was assaulted and burnt and struck with the bottle.
MR DU PLESSIS: One of the other applicants, I think Mr Mathebula, says in his application that he was tied to a water tank. Can you recall that you read that?
MR STRYDOM: I read that.
MR DU PLESSIS: What do you say about that?
MR STRYDOM: That is not correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then he says that you were also responsible for burning Mandla with the log.
MR STRYDOM: That is not correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: You say that Capt Crafford said in his application on page 497, that he Capt Crafford was the one who burnt him with the burning log.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And that is how you recall it?
MR STRYDOM: That is how I recall it, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Strydom, what the purpose of the interrogation?
MR STRYDOM: To obtain information with regard to the incidents that had been mentioned already.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then in the last paragraph you say you went home and the following day you went back there. Why did you do that?
MR STRYDOM: I wanted to return to see how it was with Mandla.
MR DU PLESSIS: What happened when you arrived there?
MR STRYDOM: When I arrived there I found Capt Prinsloo there.
MR DU PLESSIS: And what did he tell you?
MR STRYDOM: He was upset because of the assault. I did not want to argue further with him and I climbed into my car and went back home.
MR DU PLESSIS: And were you afterwards sent on an operation to Swaziland?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Sakkie Crafford and I.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know whether this was this was before the interrogation of Mandla had ceased, or do you not know?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was it shortly after this Sunday?
MR STRYDOM: It was shortly after that Sunday.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Strydom, you have now confirmed the other pages with regard to the political objective and everything with regard to that, is there anything else that you would like to tell the Committee about the TRC process, and to the family with regard to this incident?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Would you please continue.
MR STRYDOM: It has been many years that this thing has been eating away at me and I have had many sleepless nights up to now. And from my heart I would like to apologise to the family members and say how sorry I am and I hope that they will forgive me for this assault and for the death of Mandla, which ensued because of this assault. Thank you very much, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, I neglected to ask one question. May I just deal with that please.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may.
MR DU PLESSIS: You will see on page 421, application was not made for murder. However, during my consultation with Mr Strydom I asked him a specific question and that question made me reconsider my position and I'm going to apply on the basis of what he told me - I'm going to ask him the question now, for murder and then I will argue it and leave it in the Committee's hands.
Mr Strydom, when the interrogation took place, did the idea emanate by you that Mandla, because of the interrogation and the assaults, could die?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I did think about it and I foresaw that he could have died because of the assault.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well.
Madam Chair, I will leave it for argument, the whole question surrounding actions and where the eventual cause of the death is different from the actions, but the actions could have caused the death. It's that whole difficult argument, but I will ask leave to amend page 421 to include an application for murder. Thank you. I have no ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: May I just make sure at this point ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I was going to suggest, Mr du Plessis, that we will respond to that once we have heard your argument.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes, if the Committee finds that this evidence is not enough to prove murder in dolus eventualis, then I'm in your hands. But I will leave it for argument, that's the only basis for that application which I've made.
CHAIRPERSON: We note that you intend to make such an application during argument.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, thank you Chairperson.
MR MALAN: On this point, may I just follow it up. When you spoke to the family you asked for forgiveness for the assault and the consequent death. Do you ask that - I ask this on the same background as on the request of your legal representative. Did you think that his death could follow on a basis of a necessity because of the nature of the assault? Is that what you're trying to tell the family or not?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So you thought that he would be assaulted in such a manner that they would murder him because they could not release him?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MR MALAN: Because that is what I am hearing you saying to the family. And then an immediate follow-up question in my mind is why do you think he was killed?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, because I never saw him again after that Sunday.
MR MALAN: Very well. I think my question was misunderstood, but I will leave it there. Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Alberts?
MR ALBERTS: Thank you, I have no questions, Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen - or Mr Botha first?
MR BOTHA: No questions, Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Strydom, with which of the black members of Unit C did you usually work?
MR STRYDOM: Along with Mtjali, he usually worked with me.
MR JANSEN: Mr Matjeni whom I represent says he usually worked in a group with Mr Dos Santos. Does that concur with your recollection?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct yes, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: At the stage when these incidents took place, could one assume that the last thing that came to your mind was that you would 10 years later have to recall these incidents and that you'd have to give evidence about it?
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: So would you then accept that when I put to you that one has to leave room that you might be mistaken in the events?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is possible, I may err.
MR JANSEN: Because you know for example that Mr Jerry Matjeni denies that he was in any way involved in the assault or in an assault of Mr Mbizana.
MR STRYDOM: It is possible that he may not have been involved.
MR JANSEN: I say this with reference to that sentence on page 422, the final part of that paragraph where he(sic) says
"He was then severely assaulted by the black members."
... and directly afterwards -
"The black members names, except for those of Jerry and Mtjali I cannot recall."
Would you concede that insofar as you implicate Mr Mtjali in an assault, you may be mistaken in your recollection?
MR STRYDOM: It is possible yes, that I may be mistaken, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: May I find out, Mr Strydom, how you can be mistaken about the identity of the persons that you've indicated to have been Jerry and Mtjali as having been involved in the assault on Mandla at approximately 10 hours at night when you came back and found him hanging on the tree? How is it possible that you can be mistaken with regard to the identity of the black members that were responsible for his assault?
MR STRYDOM: The possibility exists because it has been 16 years and the names confused me, or it could have confused me, that I cannot recall all the names.
CHAIRPERSON: How long had you worked with Mr Matjeni and Mr Mtjali, prior to this incident?
MR STRYDOM: I worked along with Mr Mtjali for many years, it can be 15 years. And Jerry I only knew from 1985 up until my retirement in 1992.
CHAIRPERSON: So at the time of this incident you knew both men reasonably well?
MR STRYDOM: I beg your pardon, Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: At the time of the occurrence of this incident you knew both men reasonably well.
MR STRYDOM: That's right, ja.
CHAIRPERSON: And this is my difficulty. Where is there room for confusion?
MR STRYDOM: Well it's nearly 16 years ago that this thing happened, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You can speak to me in Afrikaans.
MR STRYDOM: Thank you very much. It has been more than 16 years and I cannot recall the names of the persons present there. It may have confused me entirely, the names.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of any other black members who were part of the interrogation of Mr Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall. I don't know of any names that were present.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall whether Jerry and Mtjali were part of Mandla's interrogation at any stage?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And that would be the interrogation session where you participated in his interrogation.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You only participated in one such session.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And that session followed after you had found Mandla hanging from the tree.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, you have heard the evidence of Mr Prinsloo and that is that he had already spoken to Brig Cronje before he discovered that the person, the deceased, Mandla, had been assaulted. Do you agree with that?
MR STRYDOM: I agree, yes, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And you have also testified that Mr Prinsloo admonished you and was very angry with regard to this specific incident, that Mandla was interrogated and assaulted.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, it is so that Capt Prinsloo was the appointed person who specifically investigated matters at the branch ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: Honourable Chairperson, I want to object against the previous question. The previous question to Mr Strydom I think was a bit misleading. The previous question related to the fact that Mr Prinsloo alleged that Mr Strydom testified that his client, Mr Prinsloo, was unhappy that an interrogation took place firstly and secondly, that there was an assault. That was the basis of the question. Now as I understood I object against that because as I understood his evidence-in-chief, that wasn't his evidence-in-chief, his evidence-in-chief was that Prinsloo wasn't happy with the assault and not necessarily the interrogation itself as well.
CHAIRPERSON: That is correct ...(intervention)
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I did not think that the witness misunderstood me, but let it remain there.
MR DU PLESSIS: But my objection is against my learned friend putting evidence to the witness which wasn't his evidence, as if it was his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: His evidence only related to the assault.
MR DU PLESSIS: Ja.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, was Mr Prinsloo tasked and satisfied that you questioned Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: He did not have any objection, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, why did you want to question him? You did not arrest him, you were not involved in the investigation, so on which grounds would you interrogate him?
MR STRYDOM: I was in the presence of Capt Crafford, Chairperson, and I acted under his instruction.
MR PRINSLOO: What did you and Mr Crafford know of the facts with regard to Mr Mandla? In order to question him, what did you know?
MR STRYDOM: Crafford knew everything, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Are you saying that he was tasked with this investigation of Obet Masina and this Justice Mandla? Is this what you are telling the Committee?
MR STRYDOM: "Ek was gemoeid gewees met die ondersoek van Obet Masina, ja". ...(no English interpretation)
MR PRINSLOO: I want to put it to you that Mr Crafford did not help in any input in the investigation. Do you want to comment on that?
MR STRYDOM: No, comment, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Which facts did you know about in order to question Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: I had the fact of the bomb explosion in front of Checkers in Silverton.
MR PRINSLOO: So the only thing you could ask him was whether he placed a bomb in a refuse bin in front of Checkers?
MR STRYDOM: And I had information about the murder of a municipal policeman in Mamelodi.
MR PRINSLOO: Which policeman was this?
MR STRYDOM: He was guarding a house and a handgrenade was thrown into the house and he was killed.
MR PRINSLOO: One moment please, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: May I find out Mr Strydom, how did you come to know of these facts on which you based your interrogation of Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot hear the question properly, Chairperson, my hearing isn't of the best.
CHAIRPERSON: You say that you questioned Mandla on the basis of certain information which you knew, and I want to know how did you come to know of the facts on which you questioned him on.
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, every morning in the office we had a conference among out members and it was common knowledge in the office that this specific Mandla had been arrested and the reason for his arrest as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you wish me to repeat my question, Mr Strydom?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, please.
CHAIRPERSON: How did you come to know of the facts on which you based your interrogation of Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford was the interrogator at that stage and I received my information from him.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he the one who was putting questions to Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And what was your role during the interrogation of Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: I was supposed to take notes of the questions and the answers.
CHAIRPERSON: During his interrogation did you assault him?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I assaulted him during the interrogation.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Prinsloo, I'm sorry to have interfered with your cross-examination.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, you say that notes were taken during the interrogation, what became of those notes, who received those notes?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall where those notes went. I don't know what Capt Crafford did with the notes.
MR PRINSLOO: But those notes never reached Capt Prinsloo, I will put it to you.
MR STRYDOM: That may be so, but Capt Crafford handled it and I don't know what he did with it.
MR PRINSLOO: And you say that you were divided into shifts when it came to interrogating this person, is that correct?
MR STRYDOM: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Who divided you into shifts?
MR STRYDOM: It could have been Capt Prinsloo.
MR PRINSLOO: Well Capt Prinsloo - have you heard his evidence and what his modus operandi was and what his specific method of investigation was? And you knew him quite well to know that he would not drag others into his interrogation process, is that correct?
MR STRYDOM: It may be correct, but with regard to that specific case, it was not so.
MR PRINSLOO: And you know how precise he was with his interrogations as well as the presentation of evidence.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I know him to be like that.
MR PRINSLOO: And that one would not deal lightly with a person and simply obtain information in that way and then use the information for Court purposes.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I ask where this is leading? Is my learned friend disputing the fact that this interrogation took place, that Capt Crafford was involved in the interrogation with Mr Strydom, or what is the purpose of this?
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure Mr du Plessis, we'll soon learn from Mr Prinsloo where he is heading to.
MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, the witness has just stated that Prinsloo told him to undertake the interrogation and he did not do it. I've already put it to him, and that was the reason for it. Crafford had given the man an order to interrogate, that Prinsloo was not aware of ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that's his evidence, Mr Prinsloo, his evidence is that he was tasked not by Prinsloo, but by Mr Crafford and that Mr Prinsloo might have divided them into shifts.
MR PRINSLOO: Unless I misunderstood him Madam Chair, I understood him to say explicitly that Prinsloo instructed him to do the interrogation.
CHAIRPERSON: No, it was Crafford who instructed him to do the interrogation and he did the interrogation in the presence of Crafford, and his role was merely to take notes during Crafford's interrogation.
ADV MOTATA: And upon your question is that "Mr Prinsloo was not upset that we had interrogated him".
MR MALAN: Just to come to the aid of Mr Prinsloo, my notes indicate that after he said Crafford, you asked him whether Prinsloo had divided them into shifts and he stated that it could have been Prinsloo, but he did not say that he gave the order. I think that is where the confusion ensued.
MR PRINSLOO: Then just for clarity's sake Mr Strydom, Mr Prinsloo did not divide you into shifts with regard to the interrogation, is that correct?
MR STRYDOM: That may be correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And the purpose with which you were gathered there on the farm, was not for you to interrogate Mbizana, it was that from that point you would undertake certain work, as per Prinsloo's evidence. Is that correct?
MR STRYDOM: No, Sakkie Crafford and I worked together at that stage and he undertook the interrogation of Mandla.
MR PRINSLOO: Are you saying that the explicit purpose of why you were on that farm was to interrogate Mbizana?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe how you have phrased your question might actually be very confusing to Mr Strydom.
Mr Strydom, what is being sought from you by Mr Prinsloo is to find out why were you on the farm, what was the reason for you being on the farm during that period? Was it to exclusively interrogate Mandla or were you there for other purposes?
MR STRYDOM: I was exclusively there in the company of Capt Crafford because he, Crafford, interrogated the man and I took the notes for Crafford, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead, Mr Prinsloo.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
So did Capt Crafford give you the order to go to the farm with the purposes of interrogating Mbizana? Is that what you say
MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford and I went to the farm together.
MR PRINSLOO: Did Capt Crafford give you the order to go to the farm?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, with him to accompany him to the farm.
MR PRINSLOO: And the exclusive purpose was to interrogate Mbizana, is that what you've said?
MR STRYDOM: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Had Mbizana already been arrested and was he already being held on the farm at that stage?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, he had been arrested.
MR PRINSLOO: So you arrived there at a later stage, after he'd already been taken there?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, he was already there.
MR PRINSLOO: So you don't know what took place before the time?
MR STRYDOM: No, I don't know what happened there before the time, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: So the interrogation with regard to Mr Prinsloo and the arrangements that he had made before the time, was something that you were not aware of?
MR STRYDOM: No, I would not have known about it.
MR PRINSLOO: And that would be that he would be the person who would exclusively interrogate the person.
MR STRYDOM: It is possible, yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And you don't know whether Crafford took this decision of his own volution to interrogate the person as you have stated, without the knowledge of Prinsloo?
MR STRYDOM: My experience was that ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The speaker was unclear.
MR PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence of Mr Prinsloo in this regard, I'm not going to repeat it. I just want to know from you, this Mtjali that you have referred to, was this an old man?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, he was an elderly man.
MR PRINSLOO: And he had been a member of staff for quite some time?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, for many years.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Just one question.
Mr Strydom, I look at your application on page 422, the second-last paragraph where you sketch the events, you state - or just before that, I beg your pardon Chairperson, you stated that at approximately 22H00 that evening you returned to the farm where this activist was found hung up in a tree and that he had been assaulted by the black members. Is that your evidence?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then you continue by giving a description of how Sakkie Crafford held his pistol in the air and pulled the trigger and how you hit him with empty bottles.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did any other assault take place during that period in time that you have described here in this second-last paragraph?
MR STRYDOM: Not at this specific point in time, but it appeared to me that someone may have assaulted him in the absence of me and Sakkie. I noticed that his eyes were swollen.
MS VAN DER WALT: But what I want to know from you, because in the previous paragraph you have stated that the black members assaulted him, or that he was assaulted by the black members because they were there, but you state that when you were there and Sakkie Crafford held his pistol and fired shots and you hit him with the empty soda water bottle ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: But Madam Chair, he has already testified that in his evidence-in-chief, that there was a burning of - the burning took place at the same time.
MS VAN DER WALT: Ek sal dit baie waardeer as die advokaat hom nie behulpsaam is nie, want ek wil by hom weet of dit die aanranding ...(tussenbeide) ...(no English interpretation)
MR DU PLESSIS: May I ask whether the witness of Mrs van der Walt is disputing the evidence of this witness, and upon what basis?
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, you were still proceeding to explain.
MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to know if any other assault took place during that period which mentioned in this second-last paragraph. If I may just obtain that answer.
CHAIRPERSON: Notwithstanding his viva voce evidence which was established in his evidence-in-chief, that after this incident that has been referred to, that is at page 422 on the third paragraph, that there was a later assault wherein the private parts of Mr Mbizana were burnt. Do you want to find out if there is any other incident other than that one to which he has already given evidence?
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, what is being asked of you is, are you aware of any other incident other than the incident that you've already evidenced to, wherein Mr Mbizana had his private parts burnt by Mr Crafford, was there any other incident wherein he was assaulted during that night, that you are aware of?
MR STRYDOM: There was no other incident with the exception of the gun that was fired near his head by Crafford, the burning with the burning log by Crafford and my share in the assault with the soda water bottle against the head.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you say further that there were various wounds on his head.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: So if Mr Kruger testifies that there was a burn wound on his head, would you agree?
MR STRYDOM: I would not be able to agree with it, I would not be able to comment on it, but I did not see any burn wound on his forehead.
MS VAN DER WALT: Which wounds did you see?
MR STRYDOM: I saw a wound which had been applied with the soda bottle.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was it an open wound?
MR STRYDOM: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Where was it?
MR STRYDOM: Next to the head above the ear.
MS VAN DER WALT: And it was visible?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, it was visible.
MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Joubert?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, you have already indicated that you are not certain which black members were involved during the interrogation, but you have indicated in your evidence-in-chief that Jerry and Smuts along with other members were present. Are you certain of the fact that Smuts and Jerry were present?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, when I made my statement I was not certain, but after I have read statements during the last week, I have realised that Jerry and Smuts were there.
MR JOUBERT: And are you aware of the duration of their presence and their involvement?
MR STRYDOM: I was only aware, according to my information which I have now, that they were guarding Mandla at the camp.
MR JOUBERT: So if I understand you correctly, they were present on the farm but they did not actively participate in the interrogation?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: When you say "No, Chairperson, do you mean that I am not correct, or do you agree with what I have stated?
MR STRYDOM: I agree with what you have stated.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think your question though was answered Mr Joubert, about the duration of their presence. You asked a question if he was aware of how long Smuts and Jerry were there.
MR JOUBERT: No, Madam Chair, no, I just asked whether they merely present and whether they were actively taking part in any questioning of the deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. My mistake then.
MR JOUBERT: Mr Strydom, in your evidence-in-chief when your legal representative led you, it came to light that you alleged that Mandla was not bound to a water tank.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: The version of Mr Mathebula would be that he was indeed disrobed completely and tied to the water tank.
MR STRYDOM: That is not correct.
MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula's evidence will also be that the incident which took place on that particular evening during which Mr Mandla was burnt and assaulted, was not a formal interrogation of Mandla, but that it was the result of a serious bout of drinking and a social party after which Mr Mandla was brought out for a bit of fun and pleasure.
MR STRYDOM: That is not correct, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: Now Mr Strydom, you say that you went there with Mr Crafford to interrogate Mandla.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Precisely when did you go to the farm for the interrogation?
MR STRYDOM: It was on a Saturday morning.
MR JOUBERT: And this interrogation, what form did it assume?
MR STRYDOM: Crafford led the interrogation, and I have previously stated I took notes.
MR JOUBERT: Was any violence applied during this interrogation?
MR STRYDOM: At this stage no violence had been applied, it wasn't necessary.
MR JOUBERT: Did he give his cooperation possibly?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, it is possible.
MR JOUBERT: And you then left the farm.
MR STRYDOM: Crafford and I left the farm.
MR JOUBERT: And later that evening, at approximately 10 o'clock it would appear, you returned to the farm.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Why did you return at 10 o'clock?
MR STRYDOM: We simply went to buy food and then we returned.
MR JOUBERT: For how long were you away from the farm between the first interrogation and your point of return?
MR STRYDOM: Approximately two hours.
MR JOUBERT: You have stated that Mandla was then tied to the tree, is that correct?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, when we returned he was tied to the tree.
MR JOUBERT: When you state in your application that he was hung up, do you mean that he was hanging onto the tree?
MR STRYDOM: He was tied to the tree with his feet on the ground. So I cannot say that he was suspended in the air.
MR JOUBERT: Was he at his full positive at that stage?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, he was.
MR JOUBERT: Was he standing upright against the tree?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, he stood upright against the tree.
MR JOUBERT: So he was not in any kind of slumped position as such?
MR STRYDOM: No.
MR JOUBERT: Now your choice of words in your application, referring to the fact that he was hung up, where does this come from?
MR STRYDOM: As I've stated he stood with his hands which we were attached to the tree above his head.
MR JOUBERT: You have also testified that there was a case in which Crafford burnt him with a log. Where did this log come from?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, there was a fire.
MR JOUBERT: Was it quite a cold evening?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, it was a cold evening.
MR JOUBERT: Did any other persons also assault Mandla with burning logs?
MR STRYDOM: No.
MR JOUBERT: Are you certain of that, or can you not recall?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall.
MR JOUBERT: So the possibility exists that it could have taken place?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, it could have.
MR JOUBERT: If you can just bear with me for a second please, Madam Chair. I have no further questions, thank you Madam Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chair.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: May I interject here before Mr van Heerden for the victims. Subsequent to your questions concerning the possible mistake Mr Strydom may have made in respect of the black members there, I took certain instructions from Mr Matjeni and I believe I should put those on record, because there seems to be some confusion in this regard. Thank you, Chair.
Mr Strydom, I do not want any confusion about this. I think my initial statement may have been wrongly interpreted. It seems that it was common cause that you, or that Mr Matjeni, Mr Jerry Matjeni was present at that stage when you and Mr Crafford had assaulted Mr Mbizana. Is it your version that the black members who were present there at that stage, like Mr Matjeni, were involved in the assault of this Mr Mbizana?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I would not say that they were involved, but that they were present, that's a fact.
MR JANSEN: Yes. When you assaulted the person, but it is about the sentence that he was then already badly assaulted by the black members. From what did you deduce that Mr Mbizana was assaulted before you arrived there?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, as I have said, and I am saying that I suspected that he was assaulted by the black members because I saw that his eyes were swollen like someone had struck him in the face with a first.
MR JANSEN: But you may be entirely wrong with regard to that deduction?
MR STRYDOM: I may be incorrect, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Then I also have to put it to you that Mr Matjeni says that except for the assault at that stage, he was never present on any other occasion where Mr Mbizana was assaulted. His version is also, and I want you to comment on this, that although he cannot specifically recall where Mr Mbizana was when you arrived there, Mr Mbizana was taken by Crafford, van Jaarsveld and yourself and his clothing was removed and he was then tied in that vicinity to something. And once again Mr Matjeni cannot recall the specific detail. Can you comment?
MR STRYDOM: My comment Chairperson, is that I don't have any knowledge of any such an incident where the man was disrobed.
MR JANSEN: Was he burnt with his clothing on?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, when he was burnt by Crafford he was still wearing his clothing, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And where did Crafford burn him on his body?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall exactly, but various places of his body.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him burning him particularly on his private parts?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I did not see that.
MR JANSEN: And did his clothing catch alight?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, his clothing caught fire but not with flames, with smoke.
MR JANSEN: Were the clothing items burning seriously?
MR STRYDOM: Not so bad that it was in flames.
MR JANSEN: But what I mean is, was a large part of the clothes, in other words a large surface of the clothing, was a large surface of the clothing burnt?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall, Chairperson, all that I can recall is that after he was burnt some of the members, I cannot recall whom, threw water on him.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr van Heerden?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.
Sir, you made a statement that every morning a conference was held in the offices.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How many people usually attended the conference?
MR STRYDOM: The whole unit if they were available.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Does this include Brig Cronje?
MR STRYDOM: No, it was only Unit C.
MR VAN HEERDEN: At such a meeting or conference, was information exchanged?
MR STRYDOM: The day's tasks were discussed, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And you are saying that it was general knowledge that Mandla had been arrested?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And it was then not kept secret?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson. It remained within the unit, it did not go any further, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was instruction given to keep it within the unit?
MR STRYDOM: That was normal practice, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was instruction given?
MR STRYDOM: The instruction existed for many years already, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: In your statement you say that the tents were put up and the purpose for these activities was to interrogate activists and terrorists. This is in the first paragraph of page 422.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was there more than one person that was questioned there?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot specifically recall, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Would the camp have specifically been set up for one person?
MR STRYDOM: It may be so, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Didn't you discuss it with Capt Crafford?
MR STRYDOM: Not at all, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You have also further testified that you only participated in one interrogation session or shift.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: "U getuig ook dat die man pragtig saamgewerk het". ...(no English interpretation)
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And you took notes?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I took notes, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What type of information did he give to you?
MR STRYDOM: At this stage I cannot recall anymore, Chairperson. As I have said, this was more than 16 years back.
MR VAN HEERDEN: But you have a clear recollection that he cooperated.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And then you went out to purchase food and you returned and the man was tied to a tree.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did you return?
MR STRYDOM: Because we had stayed there.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you then continue with the questioning?
MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford continued, yes Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: May I just ask, what did you buy?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall what types of food we purchased, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did it bother you when you arrived there and you saw that this man was tied to a tree?
MR STRYDOM: No, it did not bother me, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Before your departure there did you give any instructions to the black members?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was it normal practice that they could use their own initiative in your absence?
MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford at that stage was the Commander, Chairperson, and I assume that he would have given instructions to the other members.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you assume that he gave instructions that they had to assault Mandla?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I cannot say that, I don't know.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You don't know. And when you started once again with the questioning, was this continuing the previous interrogation or did you touch on a new subject?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You cannot recall the content of the interrogation.
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall at all, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Why was it decided to hit him with the soda water bottle?
MR STRYDOM: To intimidate him and to break down his moral, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And just before that he indicated his cooperation? Before you went to purchase food it seems that there was no problem with his moral then.
MR STRYDOM: Apparently not, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Does it make sense to you if you look back?
MR STRYDOM: At this stage it does not make sense, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Does it make no sense?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: This trigger that was pulled by Capt Crafford, how far from Mandla's face was the pistol?
MR STRYDOM: It was right against his head with the barrel of the gun passed his head.
MR VAN HEERDEN: So it was right against his head?
MR STRYDOM: No, not against his head. I would say Crafford's hand, the width of Crafford's hand away from his head, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And then you struck him afterwards and he became unconscious and he had several injuries to his head. Did he then cooperate?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: In your statement you have said that during this interrogation he had revealed information and several names to you.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And are you saying now that you cannot recall?
MR STRYDOM: I could not recall what information and what names he gave, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: But you confirm that he had indeed given names?
MR STRYDOM: Yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How long did you stay at the farm at times?
MR STRYDOM: As normal practice it may have been eight hours at a time, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And on my statement earlier when I asked you about the food you said you stayed at the farm. Did I understand you correctly?
MR STRYDOM: It was for a day.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Then you returned home to rest, or what procedure was followed?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, we went home to rest, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And when you arrived there the Sunday, did you want to continue with the questioning?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I did not want to continue at all, I wanted to see how the man was doing, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You see you say you wanted to see how the man was doing.
MR STRYDOM: Yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I assume that you were concerned about his condition.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I was concerned about his condition, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And he had been severely assaulted?
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: On this point Mr Strydom, in your written application you state the reason for coming back as having been to check the progress of the interrogation and not to check upon his injuries.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson, I made a mistake there, but I was also concerned about the man's condition.
CHAIRPERSON: What mistake did you make there?
MR STRYDOM: In my statement I had said that I wanted to see what progress was being made with the interrogation, but in truth I wanted to see how the man was doing, how Mandla was doing, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this known to Capt Crafford, that you would be coming back to check on the state of his injuries?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, it was not known to him.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.
The statement was made earlier that you consumed liquor there that evening, is that correct?
MR STRYDOM: That is not correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Is that a lie?
MR STRYDOM: That is a lie, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Does that include yourself and Mr Crafford?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that includes myself and Mr Crafford.
MR VAN HEERDEN: The notes that you made of the interrogation, did you give the notes to Capt Crafford when you saw him there that Sunday?
MR STRYDOM: No, I gave it to Capt Crafford the previous evening, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you tell Capt Prinsloo of the information which you had obtained?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I did not have the opportunity.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Why do you say that?
MR STRYDOM: Because the Sunday morning when I arrived at the farm, I found Capt Prinsloo there and he seemed very angry to me. He was very angry at myself and Crafford and I felt that there would be an argument and I climbed directly into my car and drove back to my house.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What words were used by Prinsloo to give you an impression that he was angry at you and Mr Crafford?
MR STRYDOM: His words were "Why did you assault this man in this manner?" And according to his facial expression I could see that he was extremely angry and I did not answer him because I was afraid that an argument would ensue and I decided to return, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Now what argument did you think would ensue, because you had interrogated the man under instructions from your superior, Mr Crafford?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I just felt that Capt Prinsloo was very angry, I saw he was angry and that it would cause a major argument and to prevent that I decided to depart.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Chairperson.
What argument would then have ensued? Because he asked you a question, he asked why did you assault him, why could you not answer him?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I could not answer him. The point is this, I know Capt Prinsloo very well and a fight might have followed.
MR MALAN: What type of fight, physically fighting with each other?
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Would he have fought with you?
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
MR MALAN: And physically struck you?
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: But he was satisfied that you just walked away.
MR STRYDOM: I think it was the best for me, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And he does not call you back?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.
If you look back at that period of time, was it necessary according to you, to have killed Justice Mbizana?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I cannot comment on that.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Why not, why can you not comment?
MR STRYDOM: Because I don't have any knowledge of his killing.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr van Heerden.
Mr Strydom, the Monday, according to your application, you returned the Sunday and the Monday morning you have another conference and Mandla is not discussed again.
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, that Monday Crafford and I received instructions from Brig Cronje to go to Swaziland.
MR MALAN: And you do not ask of anybody anything about Mandla, in spite of the fact that Prinsloo almost beat you up?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr van Heerden.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You have now listened to the evidence thusfar, in the light of these circumstances as it was sketched, was it necessary to kill Justice Mbizana?
MR DU PLESSIS: But Madam Chair, I object against this. ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, is his evidence that he killed Mr Mbizana?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Put your question pointedly, limiting your question to what is within his knowledge.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I will do so, Chairperson. I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis, do you wish to re-examine?
ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, may I through the Committee put a single question to Mr Strydom which I omitted? It will be a single question.
CHAIRPERSON: You will be limited to one question.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: I appreciate it, thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, I put it to you that at conferences the investigations of cases were never discussed, but pieces of information, instructions, feedback and enquiries. What is your comment to this?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, as Mr Prinsloo had already said that at the conference the necessary was discussed, but if somebody was arrested then it was known to the unit.
ADV PRINSLOO: I leave it at that, Madam Chair, I'm indebted to the Committee. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to take that further?
ADV PRINSLOO: What I've put to him, Madam Chair, is that none of the investigation was ever discussed at any of these conferences, it was limited to what I've put to him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and he has responded to that.
ADV PRINSLOO: He's responded to that.
CHAIRPERSON: And you are satisfied. Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I perhaps just come in here. I don't have clarity about the question and Capt Prinsloo is not going to testify again, but is the - may I enquire from my learned friend if the question is based on the premise that his client alleges that Capt Crafford never knew that Mandla was arrested and it was never told to him that Mandla was arrested, or it was never told to Mr Strydom that Mandla was arrested?
ADV PRINSLOO: With respect, Madam Chair, what I've put to him is the detail with regard to investigations, it was never discussed at any of these conferences as alluded to by Mr Strydom. That is the gist of it.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, I don't think we need to make any argument around this.
MR DU PLESSIS: I wanted to place ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I understand the question to be as a result of my questioning of Mr Strydom, when I wanted to find our on which facts they were able to interrogate Mr Mbizana, with Mr Crafford.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Madam Chair, I raised the point because I'm going to argue this point as a further inherent improbability in his client's version, where he only put it and his client didn't testify it. May I be afforded the opportunity to re-examine?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed to re-examine.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Mr Strydom, you directly acted under the command of Capt Crafford in the interrogation.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you executed his orders.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you accepted that you had to execute his orders.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: You had no reason to dispute his instructions.
MR STRYDOM: No reason at all.
MR DU PLESSIS: You have seen in the application that there is mention from the other persons, I think Mr Kruger says in his application that he was burnt on his buttocks. Is it possible?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, it is not possible that he was burnt on his buttocks.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then Mr Strydom, this particular evening when you undertook this interrogation, did you remain there for the evening or did you return at some stage?
MR STRYDOM: I did not remain there for the evening Chairperson, I returned home.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And then - Chairperson, I'm going to put something which was conveyed to me by Brig Cronje during lunch time, which I didn't know about and which I didn't put to Capt Prinsloo, and it may be that some cross-examination may flow from that and I thought that I would lead that evidence in Brig Cronje's evidence, but I think it's important that that is put to this witness as well, just to place it on record now.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll allow you Mr du Plessis, though it is not part of re-examination.
MR DU PLESSIS: It is not, but will I be allowed to do that?
CHAIRPERSON: You are applying for special leave to do that, are you not?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Otherwise I will lead that evidence when Brig Cronje testifies, but that's right at the end of the hearing and this may be important pertaining to a specific point that was made.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if we do so we'll have to allow the other legal representatives an opportunity to cross-examine.
MR DU PLESSIS: If they should want to do that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: I just want to raise it now instead of right at the end.
Mr Strydom, Brig Cronje had during the lunch hour told me that he can recall that Capt Prinsloo complained about Capt Crafford, the fact that Capt Crafford had also interrogated and that was the reason why he sent you and Capt Crafford away the Monday, so that no confrontation would ensue. Did you have any knowledge about this?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I did not know of that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Thank you, Madam Chair, I just thought that I would like to place that on record now.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Prinsloo, do you wish to cross-examine on the basis of what has been put to Mr Strydom by Mr du Plessis?
ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I will leave this for when Mr Cronje gives evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
ADV PRINSLOO: Because it's basically hearsay what's been conveyed.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thanks.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other legal representative who would like to put a question emanating from what has been put by Mr du Plessis to Mr Strydom?
MR BOTHA: No thank you, Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA
MR JOUBERT: No thank you, Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: No, nothing, thank you, Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR MALAN: Mr Strydom, you say you only participated in the interrogation once, but do you mean that only on the Saturday did you participate in the interrogation?
MR STRYDOM: Only the Saturday, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: But you are away from the farm and you returned, the assault part, was this part of the interrogation?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, it was part of the interrogation.
MR MALAN: Or was this to burning to intimidate him? Did you ask him questions while he was being assaulted there?
MR STRYDOM: I would put it as such, Chairperson, it was to intimidate him.
MR MALAN: It was not interrogation?
MR STRYDOM: No, at that stage it was not.
MR MALAN: It was a reckless senseless assault without gaining information? Or did you still take notes?
MR STRYDOM: At that stage we still took notes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Did you sit at a light and take notes?
MR STRYDOM: There was light, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: What type of light?
MR STRYDOM: A gas light.
MR MALAN: Because you see, you deny that alcohol was used, but you went you went and bought food.
MR STRYDOM: We went and bought food, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: To bring it back to the farm to eat it there?
MR STRYDOM: Yes.
MR MALAN: There was no food at the farm?
MR STRYDOM: We didn't have food there, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Very well. And you say in your statement, and I refer to page 422, that the afternoon when you went to Pretoria to buy food it was late in the afternoon.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, late afternoon.
MR MALAN: In your evidence you said late afternoon.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
MR MALAN: And late afternoon, it's a winter's day, late afternoon is before 6 o'clock because 6 o'clock it gets dark and then it is night.
MR STRYDOM: It was after six.
MR MALAN: How long after six?
MR STRYDOM: It may have been six thirty, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Let's make if six thirty. You drive to Pretoria from the farm which is there at Hammanskraal, that is about 20 minutes drive to Pretoria to buy food, if you wanted to buy food.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: You buy food and then you return only 10 o'clock that evening according to your statement.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And according to your scenario it's three and a half hours later.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Did you drink during that time?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So why did you take three and a half hours to buy food?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I can now recall that Sakkie Crafford went into the Zeerust flats and he spoke to people there, some of his friends that came from Kimberley and he spent some time there, then I met him there and then we went back to the farm there.
MR MALAN: Where were you while he was there?
MR STRYDOM: I waited in the vehicle, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So why are you saying that you met him there again if you were waiting for him in the car? You did not leave there.
MR STRYDOM: No, I did not.
MR MALAN: How long did he spend with his friends?
MR STRYDOM: It may have been an hour, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Did he not consume liquor there?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: How are you so certain that he did not consume liquor?
MR STRYDOM: Because I would have smelt if he consumed liquor.
MR MALAN: Can you recall that?
MR STRYDOM: I can recall, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: You cannot recall the other things, but you can recall that he did not drink anything and you can recall that you did not smell any liquor.
MR STRYDOM: I would not say, but if he'd spoken to me I would have known, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And you would have recalled it.
MR STRYDOM: I would have recalled it, yes.
MR MALAN: But the other things you concede that you may be mistaken and everything else is possibly otherwise, but you are entirely certain about this?
MR STRYDOM: I'm certain about this, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Very well. You are entirely certain that Mandla was never undressed.
MR STRYDOM: I am entirely certain about that.
MR MALAN: In your presence?
MR STRYDOM: I'm certain.
MR MALAN: And the persons who say that are lying?
MR STRYDOM: They do not speak the truth, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And no black member ever assaulted him in your presence?
MR STRYDOM: Not in my presence, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So the black persons' assault was an inference you draw, not what you saw?
MR STRYDOM: That's correct.
MR MALAN: And no black member questioned him in your presence.
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Very well, thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, you are excused as a witness.
MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, are you going to proceed with the next witness?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: And that being?
MR DU PLESSIS: That will be Mr Roodt.
CHAIRPERSON: Before he proceeds can we take a short adjournment to afford the translators an opportunity to have some fresh air.
MR DU PLESSIS: Please.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
